New York Times Leaf Article

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Rookie cards are determined by the year of issue. So what happens when it’s incontrovertibly proven that a set from 1948 was actually issued in 1949?

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.

Originally Posted by rats60

People who own or are selling cards call them rookie cards to try to get more money.

Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.



Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

Which dealers were those, and when?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Which dealers were those, and when?

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

[citation needed]

Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

[Touch'EmAll]

Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.

Not all of us collectors:

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.

Some of us still reserve the right to shake our heads or roll our eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not all of us collectors:



Some of us still reserve the right to shake our heads or roll our eyes.

That YOU personally don't value rookie cards says nothing about the hobby as a whole, much less prove that this is some conspiracy foisted on dumb collectors by unspecified people at an unspecified time. Next point, if you have one?

[BioCRN]

The only RC that I feel like a fool for having in my collection is 1963 Topps Pete Rose because it's an ugly as hell card that has cost too much since the 80s.

I would say at least the value is way more than than when I bought it many years ago, but it's a card in my collection not an investment I'm trying to turn for a profit.

The 63T Tony Oliva is ugly as hell, too, but at least it's not anywhere near the price of a Rose.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That YOU personally don't value rookie cards says nothing about the hobby as a whole....

Well clearly not. Trying to wax eloquent and explain the hobby as a whole to even other collectors let alone non-collectors would be one of those Sisyphean tasks to which I referred two posts ago. Feel free to take on the task if you're so inclined.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

...much less prove that this is some conspiracy foisted on dumb collectors by unspecified people at an unspecified time.

I take it you've yet to notice that collecting isn't like mathematics. As a not entirely rational activity driven by deep-rooted psychological impulses (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), it's not amenable to hard and fast proofs.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Next point, if you have one?

Yes I do indeed! Why do you and OhioLawyerF5 so often come across as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, or Abbott and Costello if you prefer? Is it the water in Ohio? Something more sinister perhaps? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like an explanation, if there is one.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by rats60

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.

In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.

As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

Oh absolutely! I agree!

It was the 1952 Mickey Mantle high numbered rookie card that got the ball rolling (helped along by sellers sitting on Mantle rookies circulating stories of untold cases of high numbers being dumped in the Hudson River). Then the Topps 1958-59 Bobby Hull rookie card was the last card in the set thus being more susceptible to pocket wear and rubber band damage. But those sitting on inventories of rookie cards, i.e. dealers, fanned the flames of demand for rookie cards which is how/why the silliness took hold and escalated beyond all reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.



Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.







Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant.

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

This is true. Let's take Marilyn Monroe, for example. Her stuff (TYPE 1 photographs, magazine covers, calendars, etc.) from the 1940s are worth more than her stuff from the succeeding decades. It has something to do with being young ... and fresh ... hey, that's human nature!!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

This is true. Let's take Marilyn Monroe, for example. Her stuff (TYPE 1 photographs, magazine covers, calendars, etc.) from the 1940s are worth more than her stuff from the succeeding decades. It has something to do with being young ... and fresh ... hey, that's human nature!!

Yes, fresh, like the tomatoes I referenced in my previous post.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor.

Hmmmm. Apply the concept of cui bono and it is indeed an obvious point. If you are indeed a lawyer you should be well aware of the concept. In fact I'm wondering why you didn't apply it immediately.

You instead asked me to produce a "source" for something that should be obvious to any prudent man. Sellers will try to talk up the value of their wares. That's no surprise to any prudent man.

Or by source do you mean "originator"? If so I'll leave the Sisyphean task of sorting through the mists of time to find this originator up to you. After all, you're the only one who's interested in his identity.

Methinks you just want an argument. Fine then. You've come to the right place.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers.... It's literally human nature.

The last time I checked, collectors were a subset of consumers in general. But most every other consumer prefers the latest rather than the first, the latest fashions (well women do anyway), the latest most advanced tech, the latest and thus freshest bread, tomatoes, etc. Admittedly we collectors can be strange. Try explaining the exorbitant price rookie cards command to the proverbial prudent man on the street. The price differential in almost all cases comes down to marketing.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible....

Here, let me give you one of those sources:

Originally Posted by P.T. Barnum

There's a sucker born every minute.

These things are always a matter of degree. Yes, a prudent man might be able to understand a 60 year old card selling for 5-10% more than a 59 year old card. But 5X or 10X the price? He'll just shake his head and pronounce it "Crazy!"

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea.

That was just an unintended side effect, collateral damage you might say, of you asking for a source/originator. Very tough to say who did something first when it was then immediately done by all.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I love my Ken McMullen rookie card.

Source?

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

...is insulting and ignorant.

Hey, I can dole out as many insults as you deserve! Once again you've come to the right place for those. The ignorance though you'll have to seek elsewhere.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Hmmmm. Apply the concept of cui bono and it is indeed an obvious point. If you are indeed a lawyer you should be well aware of the concept. In fact I'm wondering why you didn't apply it immediately.

You instead asked me to produce a "source" for something that should be obvious to any prudent man. Sellers will try to talk up the value of their wares. That's no surprise to any prudent man.

Or by source do you mean "originator"? If so I'll leave the Sisyphean task of sorting through the mists of time to find this originator up to you. After all, you're the only one who's interested in his identity.

Methinks you just want an argument. Fine then. You've come to the right place.



The last time I checked, collectors were a subset of consumers in general. But most every other consumer prefers the latest rather than the first, the latest fashions (well women do anyway), the latest most advanced tech, the latest and thus freshest bread, tomatoes, etc. Admittedly we collectors can be strange. Try explaining the exorbitant price rookie cards command to the proverbial prudent man on the street. The price differential in almost all cases comes down to marketing.



Here, let me give you one of those sources:



These things are always a matter of degree. Yes, a prudent man might be able to understand a 60 year old card selling for 5-10% more than a 59 year old card. But 5X or 10X the price? He'll just shake his head and pronounce it "Crazy!"



That was just an unintended side effect, collateral damage you might say, of you asking for a source/originator. Very tough to say who did something first when it was then immediately done by all.



Source?



Hey, I can dole out as many insults as you deserve! Once again you've come to the right place for those. The ignorance though you'll have to seek elsewhere.

That's a long way of saying, "I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertion." :rollseyes:

For someone so verbose, you sure lack logical substance. Comparing collecting mentality to broader consume markets is asinine. They are literally the opposite. Consumers, by definition, are buying to consume. Collectors are buying to keep/hoard/curate/build a collection. Very different purposes. A distintion that causes one to want the newest, and one to prefer the oldest, for obvious reasons that a prudent man would understand.

But given that you appear to think your post actually contained a shred of evidence to support your claim that rookie cards are preferred because once upon a time dealers convinced gullible collectors what they should like, tells me you aren't even remotely close to being a prudent man.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That's a long way of saying, "I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertion."

I brought out Adam Smith and P.T. Barnum. Who more do you want? Taylor Swift? I'm happier to leave her in your corner.

And had not my contention been intrinsically sound, you wouldn't have been immediately compelled to simply obfuscate by calling upon my "sources".

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

For someone so verbose, you sure lack logical substance. Comparing collecting mentality to broader consume markets is asinine. They are literally the opposite. Consumers, by definition, are buying to consume. Collectors are buying to keep/hoard/curate/build a collection.

Oh?! Here. Let me give you a quick lesson in both logic and set theory. Only some consumers are also collectors. But all collectors are nonetheless consumers. Therefore collectors are a subset of the set of consumers. Collectors therefore share the traits of consumers.

My apologies though for venturing into set theory which is a subset of mathematics. I know many of you individuals in the legal field went into law because math isn't your strong point. But numbers very often intrude into the real world, they really do.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

...every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

I won't ask you for your "source" because that's absolute, unmitigated nonsense that can be dismissed with one or two quick counter examples.

The very oldest semi-organized field of collecting may be that for coins. Coin collecting predates the Roman Empire. The coins most prized by collectors are those which best combine scarcity and aesthetic appeal. Those coins are rarely the oldest. For example, coins picturing the Emperor Decius postdate those picturing the Emperor Tiberius by nearly 250 years but Decius coins are more highly prized because they're rarer.

And in the art world it's not a painter's earliest pictures that fetch the biggest bucks; it's his best.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Actually he can. It may come as a surprise to you, but those two factors can go hand-in-hand.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first caAll you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

After your long-winded characterizing of collectors as those who inherently prize the old, you now have the gall to accuse another poster of denigrating the way others collect? What about all those collectors snapping up the new 2025 releases of sports cards? You've implied that they're not proper collectors because they're not going after the oldest.

Incidentally the word is "rationalize". Yes, yes, I make mistakes too. But at least I have sufficient consideration for my fellow posters to read over my posts with a view to editing out any mistakes.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox....

Hey, despite your many and varied personal deficiencies, you too can have an impact (at least on this board)! How do you like my "new" old avatar which I'm resurrecting to better showcase the sly side of my character?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant.

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it.

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.

In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.

As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rats60

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.



In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.



As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Regardless of your contradiction, every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox, the fact that dealers anf manufacturers leaned into and embraced the desire of collectors to have the earliest cards of a player, does not mean they created that desire.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

All you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Regardless of your contradiction, every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox, the fact that dealers anf manufacturers leaned into and embraced the desire of collectors to have the earliest cards of a player, does not mean they created that desire.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

All you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

It was plainly stated in my post, but I will repeat it again. Cards in the early days of rookie cards were valued based on rarity. It wasn't until later that there was a preference for rookie cards. This preference for older doesn't necessarily apply to baseball cards. A players oldest card isn't always his most valuable. Mickey Mantle's most valuable card is his 1952 Topps, it is not his oldest card.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by balticfox

so what? The "1948" leaf cards of jackie robinson and satchel paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.



Yes, precisely! 'nuff said.

[citation needed]

[bcbgcbrcb]

Once again, why is it that every time the subject of Bond Bread Jackie cards comes up, we focus solely on the portrait card being from 1947 along with how some/all of the remaining 12 cards were issued after 1947. What about the much more widely released D305 Jackie card that was included with the Musial and all other cards from that set. I have never heard any debate that this card was issued in 1947 so why isn’t it mentioned first and foremost in these conversations? This has to be the second or third time this subject has been brought up and no mention of the D305 Jackie until I interject numerous posts later.

[Jstottlemire1]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Once again, why is it that every time the subject of Bond Bread Jackie cards comes up, we focus solely on the portrait card being from 1947 along with how some/all of the remaining 12 cards were issued after 1947. What about the much more widely released D305 Jackie card that was included with the Musial and all other cards from that set. I have never heard any debate that this card was issued in 1947 so why isn’t it mentioned first and foremost in these conversations? This has to be the second or third time this subject has been brought up and no mention of the D305 Jackie until I interject numerous posts later.

The Bond Bread Jackie’s were issued from 1947-1949 the Portrait with facsimile auto is the most abundant of the set and its earliest of releases.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.



Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

For a while there was some validity to most rookie cards being worth more.
And it was all about the survival rate of those cards.

Kids typically collected as kids for maybe 3-4 years. Yes, there were outliers like me and probably a bunch of others here who never really stopped.

And the occasional purge of "stuff" by mom was a thing. Sometimes a favorite card or two would be saved, but most got thrown away or given away.

So for example, a kid gets a 54 Aaron. Bit loses interest in cards a bit into 55. By spring cleaning 56, he's not really interested. Maybe isn't a Braves fan, and probably not a fan of then kid who hit a decent number of home runs but isn't flashy like Mays or Mantle and who knows if he will get any better?

So the favorite player and maybe a few stars get saved, but the Aaron rookie goes in the bin with the rest of the cards.
So they were less common.

By the late 70's, that was less of a thing. The hobby was more advanced and popular. Not that kids collected longer, but the Rookie card thing had been established. So they got saved more often than not.

By the junk wax era - yeah, it was nothing buy hype. And Beckett for better or worse promoted guidelines that said local issues couldn't be rookie cards. They had to be major nationally issued sets.
I would say that for most sets since the mid 70's the rookie cards are more common than all but a few stars. But not by much.

It's sort of silly for prewar cards, and even late 40's cards.

A few other things influence it, mostly that people have a bit of a fascination with "firsts" . Sort of like a first edition of a book, or a card of someone who was the first to do something.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Identifying a few historical examples where the RC was not the most valuable does not prove the hobby never cared about rookie cards. Even today there are such examples, not only Mantle. Pedro Martinez' RC isn't worth a nickel. In high grade, a 71 Munson and I think too a 71 Vida Blue are worth more than their RCs. There may be others. Nobody is contending relative abundance/scarcity is entirely irrelevant. Do people care now more than ever about RCs, perhaps, but again that does not show there was a time they did not.

[packs]

Sometimes a card just has a cool image like the Pee Wee Reese Bowman. But generally speaking I would say the hobby appreciates rookie cards.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by packs

Sometimes a card just has a cool image like the Pee Wee Reese Bowman. But generally speaking I would say the hobby appreciates rookie cards.

I’ll admit, I’ve never totally understood this phenomenon. I would take Jackie‘s ‘52 or 55T over his Leaf card any day of the week.

[packs]

The price you'll pay for the Art Whitney with Dog N172 is about 5% Whitney and 95% dog.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by conor912

I’ll admit, I’ve never totally understood this phenomenon. I would take Jackie‘s ‘52 or 55T over his Leaf card any day of the week.

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

[Snowman]

The surviving pop counts of 1948/49 Leaf Short Prints is likely somewhere between 200-250 total copies of each card. Each SP was printed on the same 7x7 sheets, so the original pop counts were identical for all SPs.

The PSA pop counts for most SPs range from about 90 to 110 each. But those aren't graded often enough to get an idea of the true total population obviously. With the Paige being worth $20k+ even in low grade, nearly all copies have been graded at least once, with many of them having been graded multiple times. Are there still a handful of raw copies sitting in someone's attic that have never been graded? Sure, of course. But there probably aren't dozens of them floating around unaccounted for. The combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts for the Paige is currently 279 (193 PSA, 74 SGC, 12 BVG). It's safe to assume that each of the 12 BVG copies was sent to both PSA and SGC before being sent to BVG, so we can safely remove at least 24 from that pop report. Minus however many of the remaining PSA & SGC copies that were also cracked and resubmitted. Far more have been cracked and resubmitted than raw copies exist in Grandpa's attic today without question though. I would estimate that the true total remaining pop report today for the Paige is somewhere between 200 to 250 copies. And the remaining pop report for the other short prints is likely slightly less due to them being tossed in the trash at higher rates than the HOFers over the years.

The data suggests that there is approximately a 10 to 1 ratio for the full print run cards to the short printed cards. See counts below.

Notable combined PSA/SGC/BVG pop counts from the set:

Short Prints:
Satchel Paige 279 (193 PSA)
Bob Feller 199 (156 PSA)
George Kell 148 (111 PSA)
Dom DiMaggio 171 (124 PSA)
Larry Doby 215 (162 PSA)

Non-SPs
Ted Williams 2202 (1471 PSA)
Babe Ruth 2328 (1595 PSA)
Joe DiMaggio 2246 (1501 PSA)
Jackie Robinson 2676 (1849 PSA)
Stan Musial 1968 (1339 PSA)

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

Graig Kreindler's version of it is 10000x as good.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Let’s be honest — the Leaf photo/image is absolutely hideous.

The set just screams Andy Warhol and I love it !! But the Paige card is fugly !! What the hell was Leaf thinking choosing this image below to make his card ?? The Bowman blows it outta' the water !!